Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro
Compare Claude Fable 5.1 and Gemini 2.5 Pro side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Object Detection, OCR, Image Captioning, Open Prompt, and Classification.
Compare Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro on Vision Evals
Claude Fable 5.1 scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Claude Fable 5.1 leads 72.0% to 42.4%.
Overall, Claude Fable 5.1 averages 81.3% (#7 of 36) against 66.0% (#26 of 36) for Gemini 2.5 Pro.
Gemini 2.5 Pro is both cheaper ($0.0050 vs $0.035 per sample) and faster (6.1s vs 8.3s per sample).
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro Comparison Table
Evals updated September 2, 2026Pricing updated September 2, 2026
| Property | Claude Fable 5.1 | Gemini 2.5 Pro |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Jun 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $10.00 | $1.25 |
| Output $/1M | $50.00 | $10.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 81.3% | 66.0% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.035 | $0.0050 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.28s | 6.11s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 61.4% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 61.0 to 62.0 | 33.7% |
| Object Detection (high) | 65.0% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 65.3 | – |
| Counting (low) | 69.4% ±2.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 71.6 | 52.7% |
| Counting (high) | 73.0% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 67.6 to 77.0 | – |
| Identification (low) | 97.9% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 96.9 to 100.0 | 93.8% |
| Identification (high) | 96.9% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.8 to 100.0 | – |
| OCR (low) | 94.0% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.6 to 94.4 | 88.8% |
| OCR (high) | 93.6% ±0.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 93.5 to 93.9 | – |
| Data Extraction (low) | 93.1% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8 | 84.5% |
| Data Extraction (high) | 93.5% ±0.5, Mean of 3 runs, range 92.8 to 93.8 | – |
| Reasoning (low) | 72.0% ±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 70.9 to 73.5 | 42.4% |
| Reasoning (high) | 73.1% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 71.5 to 75.5 | 62.3% |
Claude Fable 5.1 vs Gemini 2.5 Pro: Overview
Claude Fable 5.1 is a proprietary multimodal model from Anthropic in the Mythos-class tier of the Claude 5 family, positioned above Claude Opus for demanding reasoning and long-horizon agentic work. It accepts text and images as input and returns text, with a one million token context window and a maximum output of 128 thousand tokens. Adaptive thinking is always on, and an effort parameter controls how much reasoning the model applies to a given request. Anthropic reports a reliable knowledge and training data cutoff of June 2026. Claude Fable 5.1 and Claude Mythos 5.1 share the same underlying model; the difference between them is the set of safety classifiers applied to dual-use cybersecurity and biology requests.
On the vision side, Anthropic documents improvements in reading dense charts, financial filings, and tables nested inside PDF documents, which extends the model toward document understanding, chart question answering, and spreadsheet and slide work. Reported evaluations cover agentic scientific research on Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1, agentic coding on Terminal-Bench 4.0, computer use on OSWorld 2.0, and multidisciplinary reasoning on Humanity's Last Exam. Model weights are not published.
Gemini 2.5 Pro, released on June 17, 2025, is Google DeepMind’s most capable model in the Gemini 2.5 family, optimized for deep reasoning, coding, and complex multimodal tasks. It accepts text, images, audio, video, and PDFs as input and outputs text. The model supports 1 million input tokens with an output capacity of up to 65K tokens, enabling large-scale comprehension of datasets, codebases, and technical documents. Its training knowledge extends to January 2025.
Pro outperforms earlier Gemini 2.0 models across benchmarks, including agentic coding tasks where it achieved ~63.8% on SWE-Bench Verified. It supports structured outputs, function calling, code execution, search grounding, and URL context, making it well-suited for enterprise, STEM, and developer workflows. However, it does not currently support image or audio generation in its stable release, and its higher computational cost and latency make it less efficient than Flash or Flash-Lite. It is available via the Gemini API, Google AI Studio, and Vertex AI.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Fable 5.1 performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 81.3% (#7 of 36) against 66.0% (#26 of 36) for Gemini 2.5 Pro. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Claude Fable 5.1 leads with 72.0% against 42.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Gemini 2.5 Pro is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0050 per sample against $0.035. Claude Fable 5.1 is priced at $10.00 per 1M input tokens and $50.00 per 1M output; Gemini 2.5 Pro is priced at $1.25 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Gemini 2.5 Pro is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.1s per inference against 8.3s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.
Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for object detection and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.